OBs not coming to Florida not new news. But suggesting that patients start buying malpractice insurance is:
A more short-term fix is to require consumers to do what you do when “flying, driving a car,” or other things that involve inherent risk.“You buy insurance,” Dr. Bernick said, suggesting that the tail is wagging the dog somewhat in requiring the doctor to buy the insurance, rather than the consumer.
Related posts:
- De-linking employer-based health insurance
- Patients lose again: Radiologists pull out of a hospital due to malpractice insurance concerns
- Requiring surgeries to be videotaped
- EMRs and malpractice insurance?
- The cost of bringing a malpractice suit
- The choice between malpractice and insurance fraud
- Should there be a law requiring patients to receive copies of their test results?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 6 comments }
Thsi is right on. I already carry uninsured motorist insurance even thought liability insurance is required of drivers. It seems to me that there would be a market for such a product and you could carry it just like you carry diability, life, and homeowners insurance.
I hadn’t thought of insurance from this perspective before. Since most patients never inquire how much coverage a doc has, or even if this is known, don’t know how much of the liability cap might have been consumed prior to their trip to the court.
However, in many respects I am already insured for health events related to any cause, including bad luck, bad genes, or medical malpractice by my general health insurance. I also buy insurance should I die, or become disabled from employment in my field. So pretty much whatever happens to me as a patient, I’ve got my family in decent shape. General purpose insurance is the best approach, as bad shit is more likely to be unrelated to malpractice. Patient purchased malpractice insurance does not help me in the instance no one conspires to cause me harm.
From the economic perspective, buying insurance for very specific events, like some of the cancer policies out there, is a poor choice. The specific policy does little good for life’s most likely problems and really just preys on inflated personal fears.
Disability insurance is available to the qualified and the willing. I suppose if you are retired or disabled you’re out of luck.
I don’t know about pain and suffering insurance, or loss of consortium insurance. Sounds like new territory, there. Although if there is a way to quantify the risk–maybe a job for an enterprising actuary–some company, perhaps even Lloyds, could give you a rate. If they can figure the risk of singing out of tune, the rest doesn’t seem so impossible, except perhaps for getting someone to buy the coverage.
I think that loss of consortium insurance could save many a marriage.
How long would it be before our carrier would forbid us to see any Doc. who had ever had a claim filed against him? You guys shouldn’t be happy to see this come to life. It would put you out of business. They would be like “Nope, we paid out money because of him before, if you go to him we won’t cover you.” Think about it!
“hey would be like “Nope, we paid out money because of him before, if you go to him we won’t cover you.” Think about it!”
That shows a lack of understanding of the current malpractice mess. It’s hard to find a doctor who doesn’t have a lawsuit or settlement in hisa history, the suing disease is so pervasive. If insurancer companies refused to allow patients to see docs woth lawsuits, there would be almost no doctors left to see.
Comments on this entry are closed.